VAR: Yay or Nay?

[ItalAussie]

What do people think of the great VAR experiment?

I think they should bin it wholesale. The one thing football has that sets it apart from things like the NFL and the rugbysports is that the game flows basically continuously. Obviously there's the odd free kick or penalty, but something is always happening. Football should make this point-of-difference the most central aim of the ruleset, even if it means sacrificing the odd bit of refereeing accuracy.

And the worst of it is, some decisions will just never be clear cut. Taking six minutes to look at every possible angle isn't going to make it any easier. It'll just slow things down. And we're about two or three years away from referees letting every marginal decision run, then checking every goal in the VAR. You only have to look at how rugby uses the video ref to see how things are going to go in the not-too-distant future.

Anyway, that's my piece. What's yours?

[Baz]

I was dubious about the goal line technology and then when they tried it, it worked brilliantly. (Although I think they use a different system in France and it’s rubbish?) So I gave VAR the benefit of the doubt and figured it was worth a try. Turns out it doesn’t help at all and should be scrapped immediately and never be considered again unless the powers that be can find a feasible way to actually make it work.

[Sir Andy Mahowry]

It's bollocks.

I was fine with them testing it but I feel that they have failed.

[Gray Fox]

VAR got every decision right in the Liverpool v West Brom game. It helped correctly disallow a goal that would otherwise have stood and correctly awarded a penalty where one was missed.

I don't care if we have to stop the game for 20 minutes, so long as the right call is made. That's the whole point. I keep hearing that it's disrupting a "free flowing game" and for that it should be scrapped. Those people would be the first to complain if a dodgy penalty call cost their team.
It will get quicker and more streamlined and people will need time to get used to it, but it definitely the way to go.

[Lewis]

The obvious thing to improve what I saw today would be to get rid of the referee going to watch a screen himself. Either force the video referee to make a decision, or use the (admittedly bollocks) Super League rule where the referee makes an on-field call and then the video wallies have to conclusively prove otherwise in order to reverse it. If you the people upstairs are allowed to shirk it then what is the point?

[hfswjyr]

I was surprised to see them trialing it. I thought the biggest argument against it consisted of people who just loved arguing/moaning about every decision until the next game. For me, that's the essence of football. VAR takes that away.

[Panda Bear]

As a hockey fan, I can tell you that it moves to criticising the reviewers.

[Spikey M]

I think it can be used pretty easily. Just have the 4th official make the decision by quickly watching the replays. It may take up some time, but if it stops shithouses from diving and gets smaller teams awarded penalties at Old Trafford then it’s worth the slight delay.

I don’t get the ‘disrupting the game’ argument really, it’s not as if the players just accept the referees decision. They argue, run to the linesman, and piss about for 5 minutes anyway.

[niko_cee]

It's crap, but the box is open now so good luck getting it back in.

[Jimmy Floyd]

They just need RTS for 'contact' in the diving decisions.

[Max Power]

They just need RTS for 'contact' in the diving decisions.

“Rock and roll that for me... you are on screen now Andre”

[Shindig]

I was surprised to see them trialing it. I thought the biggest argument against it consisted of people who just loved arguing/moaning about every decision until the next game. For me, that's the essence of football. VAR takes that away.

It doesn't really though. Otherwise contentious decisions would've been cleared up in the studio afterwards. Some discussion never stops. Especially when concerning 'soft' penalties, dives and marginal offsides.

[Giggles]

It needs to be taken out the back and put out of its misery. Absolute shambles.

[-james-]

It can, and will, be more efficient than in its current state. There is no reason for it having to take 20 seconds per decision, max. When the kinks are worked out it can only be a good thing.

[Mike]

Dion Dublin said on MOTD that the FA should talk to the people in charge of it in Rugby and I agree. In Rugby League you can see, in the ground, what is getting looked at and on TV you can hear (or you could, I haven't watched for a while) the ref talking and saying what is getting looked at and why.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Difference between rugby and football is the supporters of the latter are all steamheads, so they'll never show anything controversial on screens in the ground.

[Raoul Duke]

It seems like a good idea, but a load of arse in practice. Goal line technology is great because it's unequivocal, this just lets referees chicken out of decisions.

[Jimmy Floyd]

It can, and will, be more efficient than in its current state. There is no reason for it having to take 20 seconds per decision, max. When the kinks are worked out it can only be a good thing.

There is every reason it will take longer, which is that loads of the laws of football call for subjective decision-making from the referee and that hasn't stopped everyone in football making millions out of it. You're coming from the point of view of a gambler who needs to get rid of variables, football as a sport is fluid and imprecise and should remain that way.

[ItalAussie]

It can, and will, be more efficient than in its current state. There is no reason for it having to take 20 seconds per decision, max. When the kinks are worked out it can only be a good thing.

Has this ever been true in a single sport that incorporated replays? It's certainly not true in cricket, either rugby, or NFL.

Reducing a 3D event onto a 2D projection makes the decision more difficult in a lot of cases.

[Giggles]

Even in the NFL, which is a sport where the game stops for TV advertisements, video replay is a long drawn out mess. And that's even after them deliberately attempting to speed the whole thing up. It'll never work in something like soccer.

[Lewis]

Dion Dublin said on MOTD that the FA should talk to the people in charge of it in Rugby and I agree. In Rugby League you can see, in the ground, what is getting looked at and on TV you can hear (or you could, I haven't watched for a while) the ref talking and saying what is getting looked at and why.

I can't remember which game it was at Rovers that was televised, so had the video referee, but Sky were covering it on the cheap and never bothered to bring their big screen. When things were getting sent upstairs we all just stood around tentatively clapping/seething for two minutes.

[phonics]

It's been in use for what, 4 weeks of matches and has got more decisions right than wrong.

It needs smoothing out but it'll come. The most interesting stat I've seen from countries using VAR was Italy where they're down on the yellow card average by something like 100 because the players know they'll get caught so aren't trying the cynical stuff.

[Disco]

I love how people are losing their shit over a system that has predominantly gotten things right (we all knew Pardew was a prick but he excelled himself over this). It should stay as long as possible and be as divisive as possible.

[Disco]

Has this ever been true in a single sport that incorporated replays? It's certainly not true in cricket, either rugby, or NFL.

Reducing a 3D event onto a 2D projection makes the decision more difficult in a lot of cases.

It's demonstrably fine in rugby, and any difficulty in seeing an incident is vastly outweighed by being able to see it multiple times and from multiple angles.

[Sir Andy Mahowry]

Even in the NFL, which is a sport where the game stops for TV advertisements, video replay is a long drawn out mess. And that's even after them deliberately attempting to speed the whole thing up. It'll never work in something like soccer.

Yep and it actively hurts the game at times. People bitch and moan about 'when is a catch not a catch' but it's down to the replays. When you're looking at something from multiple angles in different speeds you're almost always going to see something that might not be quite right.

[Yevrah]

Is it being used offsides? As I've been banging on for years, that'll ultimately be its undoing.

[Jimmy Floyd]

It's demonstrably fine in rugby, and any difficulty in seeing an incident is vastly outweighed by being able to see it multiple times and from multiple angles.

Rugby infringements are generally line decisions though (even if the lines are imaginary) - only exceptions being the blocking off/knock ons which are generally quite clear.

Football challenges are much harder to rule on, what is a push, what is a trip, has he dived or was he 'entitled to go down', and so on.

[phonics]

So what you're saying is the problem is with the rules not VAR. In which case I'd agree. If you can tell me what is or isn't a handball with 100% accuracy at this point in time then you're a better man than I.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Easier to let a subjective human interpret subjective rules than try to introduce faux-objectivity and in the process slow the game down by half an hour.

[Pepe]

Is it being used offsides? As I've been banging on for years, that'll ultimately be its undoing.

Would there be any incentive to ever call an offside? It seems that the best way would be to let every single play run and then review it. Which sounds garbage.

[-james-]

There is every reason it will take longer, which is that loads of the laws of football call for subjective decision-making from the referee and that hasn't stopped everyone in football making millions out of it. You're coming from the point of view of a gambler who needs to get rid of variables, football as a sport is fluid and imprecise and should remain that way.

Whether or not something is getting referred to VAR only needs to take a few seconds. The man in the box should then have 20-30 seconds to view the incident from multiple angles, and make a call. He will get it wrong sometimes, yes, but it will be far less regular than it has been up until now.

It may result in less arguments down the pub, but the idea that fewer correct decisions is a good thing is ludicrous, as any fan in Ireland aside from Giggles will tell you.

[Jimmy Floyd]

The best way of getting more correct decisions would be to just publish official refereeing stats every week and they will sort their lives out pretty sharpish.

[Foe]

I think it would be a good thing if used in a reasonable manner. Leave the game to play, if there's a clear and obvious error let the guys behind the screen buzz down otherwise get on with it. Set some limits as to what would constitute the previous incident being 'dead' i.e. 20 seconds, or ball returned into play or something.

There was an interesting video pissing about twitter last night showing the replay of the VAR disallowed header goal for West Brom. Right at the start of it you see Mingolet two handed push Barry out of the way when the ball is played in. If he'd have gone down, would they have given a pen using VAR? Far, far more contact than the Salah incident which was deemed a penalty.

The game rules are still too subjective, so you need to leave the referee to manage the game and correct any clear and obvious errors only. Rather than look at each and every debatable decision for a couple of minutes to work out the 'best' option. The referee last night was made to look like a tool because he was over-ruled several times and basically gave up trying to make decisions and let VAR take over.

In NFL the ruling on the field is the ruling on the field and the evidence needs to conclusively prove otherwise. If the next phase happens and there's not been an interruption then it's tough luck and move on.

[Shindig]

The best way of getting more correct decisions would be to just publish official refereeing stats every week and they will sort their lives out pretty sharpish.

Publish the ref reports, certainly.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I'd just have a simple reporting mechanism (which they must have already in secret): Decisions and Key Decisions, and season-long percentages right for each one for each ref. That way Jon Moss gets exposed as the pillock he is, and Michael Oliver gets his due props for being easily the world's best.

[Spikey M]

Has this ever been true in a single sport that incorporated replays? It's certainly not true in cricket, either rugby, or NFL.

Reducing a 3D event onto a 2D projection makes the decision more difficult in a lot of cases.

Are you suggesting a large scale 4D projection on the pitch instead? Obviously you’d need to get Hans Zimmer in to build the tension. Fuck it, I’m in.

[Spikey M]

Is it being used offsides? As I've been banging on for years, that'll ultimately be its undoing.

Half the referees don’t even understand the offside rules, so replays aren’t going to help. That said, an offside decision after countless viewings of the below would be even more hilarious.

[Magic]

110% behind VAR.

[Reg]

I'm undecided yet as I feel it's too early. I'd be very much against it if in the future practically every decision is reviewed and the game slows down massively as a result. If it's, say, once on average per match then that's fine in my opinion.

I don't feel there's an urgent need for every decision to be correct. If the game isn't slowed down then great, but the odd incorrect decision is a price worth paying for football being the most fluid sport in the world.

[Jimmy Floyd]

If you're going to have 'video replays', I'd much rather have one manager challenge per half (which you keep if upheld).

[CJay]

I didn’t realise Pardew blamed it for the hamstring injuries. How do they manage the 15 minute break at half time?

[Reg]

Yep, that'd be a good way of limiting the impact on time/stoppages. As in tennis, the decision about when to use a challenge would add some intrigue.

The idea of not showing the replays on screens at games is nonsense in my opinion. Obviously it's implying that fans couldn't handle themselves and would riot or whatever, but 1) that's unfair and 2) why would a VAR decision more likely to incite violence etc. than a referee's decision?

[CJay]

If you're going to have 'video replays', I'd much rather have one manager challenge per half (which you keep if upheld).

I think something like that is a good idea. Thto referee and linesmen still have to be trusted to make the right decision.

[Raoul Duke]

I doubt we're too far away from having an automated system which could detect offsides. Seems like a fairly concise set of parameters needed to figure it out, but I wonder if the camera technology is up to it.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I doubt we're too far away from having an automated system which could detect offsides. Seems like a fairly concise set of parameters needed to figure it out, but I wonder if the camera technology is up to it.

Can cameras recognise colours of shirt? Might have to have luminous yellow v luminous green in every game.

[Foe]

The only reason I can see them not showing it on screens in the stadiums is setting the precedent that having a big fuck off screen is required for VAR. That'd basically screw over it's wide scale use at lower league clubs who can't afford a jumbotron.

At the very least you need to tell the fans what's happening though.

[Raoul Duke]

Can cameras recognise colours of shirt? Might have to have luminous yellow v luminous green in every game.

Of course. Visual recognition + gait tracking + standardised playing field and objects in motion (ball/players even down to legs/arms etc.), seems within it's current grasp.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Will that cost a drillion pounds?

[Raoul Duke]

Probably right now, yeah. Certainly feasible though.

[Dark Soldier]

I'm all for it. Its easy to lose ya shit after a few matches.